The Cocina Indigena y Popular series (Popular means roughly lower class) varies in quality but who cares?
I'm a little confused here. None of my Spanish etymological dictionaries, including that of the Academia Real (sort of the Oxford English Dictionary of Spain), define popular as "lower class." It is, like its use in English, "popular" or "of the people." Perhaps "the people" means lower class and I was unaware of that.
To be sure the volumes contain a lot of wild plant eating and what can only be described as 'critter cuisine.' But one culture's critters is another's piece de resistance. Strange, but it is Zurita Munoz' wondrous Diccionario that explained to me what some of the more arcane foods in the Cocina Indigena were, where they were found, who ate them, and how they were/are prepared. That is precisely why it is the Diccionario of Mexican Gastronomy - the whole kit and kaboodle of it. I find myself wondering why CONACULTA would spend 54 volumes on the lower classes of the country. Not to mention the fact that there are recipes from the white tablecloth set included as well, eg: the Corn volume contains, among other things, a tamal which flavors its masa with praline paste (the French stuff, not the Creole New Orleans candy) and wild cherries.
It is 54 volumes of what the people have eaten, and continue to eat. And some of those people are from what are today considered the lower classes. But it is the length, breadth, depth, and height of Mexican gastronomy. And if Munoz Zurita does not disdain it, but rather embraces it, why should we?